Aradic-es

Archive

1 2 3 4

HI there, Aradic

Please send me an email, I'd like to discuss something with you. Hobartimus (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Forums again...

Ok, here's the thing. People use sources to reinforce pieces of text, right? For example, when you've got a university publication for a source, the stuff it supports is virtually untouchable. An ordinary book or respectable news article is pretty good as well, etc. HOWEVER, when you use some blog or forum(!) for a "source", not only does that not help you at all - it actually makes it look like your text is POV-pushing and will get it removed sooner than if it wasn't sourced at all. :)

The bottom line is: forums are NOT sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks and edits made on Habsburg Empire

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 13:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Habsburg Empire. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 13:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Esemono

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Esemono. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN

As you have shown here, you apparently think that users own articles on this website. This is not the case. If you look just below the edit window when editing a page, you'll see the following text: Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree to be credited, at minimum, through a hyperlink or URL when your contributions are reused in any form. See the Terms of Use for details. Relevant text has been bolded. For further info, please read WP:OWN.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of United Kingdom during Yugoslav wars

I have nominated United Kingdom during Yugoslav wars, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom during Yugoslav wars. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Nickhh (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Do not blank this article's talkpage. You will be blocked if you persist. Buckshot06(prof) 21:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Too busy

Hi Aradic. I am too busy at present to add much content to wikipedia. However, I keep a daily watch on Karadjordjevo agreement and some related articles just to make sure people aren't removing large amounts of sourced information. I've put too much effort into that article to watch it being destroyed. :) I don't really care too much about following yours and Producer's crazy wikipedia war. Polargeo (talk) 08:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have some information to add to your page on the UK when you are ready to start the new article. I think it may add some balance. I can find much more that will balance the article nicely if you like.

UK support of Croatia during the breakup of Yugolavia

“Croatia’s case was presented with considerable sympathy in the Western media.” Even “left and liberal circles in the United Kingdom […] had fallen under the spell of Croatian nationalism. These people demonstrated their solidarity with a small minded, right-wing autocrat [Tuđman]”. Misha Glenny, a UK journalist working in Yugoslavia was telephoned in his hotel room by Serbs screaming at him for supposedly supporting the “Ustashas”, meaning the Croats.

References

I hope this is useful ;-) Polargeo (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Esperanza

Hola Aradic que tal? Buenos dias y bom dia, guten tag und/et bon jour :) Polargeo (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Šuica

A tag has been placed on Šuica requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. CynofGavuf 09:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please please just stop this now

The repeated addition of information about Bosniaks and Turks must stop. The following paragraph alone should earn you a block from ever editing Bosniaks.

Despite the thing that some famous Bosniaks like actor Emir Hadžihafizbegović claimed that most Bosniaks actually have been supporting Croatia, there was no record about organized supporting Bosniaks to Croatian team.Some Bosniak journalists have described that as the final victory of Ratko Mladić. (Ratko Mladić was famous for his statement after conquest of Srebrenica and later massacre, on July 11 1995 described it as revenge to the Turks)

Polargeo (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

AN notification

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Ethnic_provocation_on_Balkan_Articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Alright, enough. Per Wikipedia:ARBMAC (notification here), I am topic-banning you from Bosniaks for the next week. Violate this ban and I will block you. I find your edits inappropriate, but your refusal to discuss them and continued edit warring is enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, do things like this again and you will blocked. I have little patience for that kind of editing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A few points. First, from this, I shouldn't have to remind you of our no personal attacks policy. Second, the country is Bosnia and Herzegovina, not Herzegovina itself. Your link to Herzegovinian Croat goes to Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina so what are thinking that adds? I'm not going to argue about it too much, but flying-by controversial edits are not appropriate on these topics and because of the number of editors who have not acted appropriately, Arbcom has given broad latitude to administrators over this area. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There are methods to appeal any discretionary sanctions. The current noticeboard is fine with me, but you may consider other methods if you would like (WP:ANI may be appropriate). However, I issued the sanctions over your edits at Bosniaks, with the other point being minor to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Aradic is arguing over the minor points. The major point is adding "Ratko Mladić was famous for his statement after conquest of Srebrenica and later massacre, on July 11 1995 described it as revenge to the Turks" I won't go into it in detail but it is not right to add this to Bosniaks and I think Aradic knows he has gone too far. Polargeo (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If Aradic thinks he's gone too far, he sure has an odd way of showing it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

Forget it. We're done here. This attitude is totally inappropriate and you continued edit warring at Blaž Kraljević is enough for me. The prior blocks show no effort on your part to improve. This nonsense is either extreme denial or a willful blindness I don't think anyone should have to bother with anymore. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aradic-es (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

hello! I want to clarify certain: So called edit war on article Blaž Kraljević I have explained on Talk:Blaž Kraljević User:Ricky81682 has made a unique case here with me. he threats me by blocking because of the content dispute in thearticle that he is not (obviously) informed at all My statements here can be easily verifiedAñtó| Àntó (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There is a clear consensus that your conduct has been disruptive, and you are showing no signs of understanding or willingness to modify your attitude. No use talking about an unblock under these conditions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aradic-es (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I think this is the issue that should be resolved by an arbitration comittee. Añtó| Àntó (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Then contact the Arbitration Committee by email. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 09:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aradic-es (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to ask something: Is it appropriate for an admin use phrases like this nonsense for a simple discussion at talk page. Even to threat somebody?? Is that reason to block somebody forever?? I mean what is so big deal at that content: Test at google.com : *"Elizabeth II of England"-wiki :[1]:360,000 results *"Elizabeth II of United Kingdom"-wiki [2] 461,000 results Common mistake is referring entire UK as England , entire BiH as Bosnia etc.

Decline reason:

Queen Elizabeth II is not blocked, because she hasn't been editing disruptively at Wikipedia, so I don't see how she is relevant to the reasons for your block, which are related to disruptive editing. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was referring to the content dispute at Blaž Kraljević: He is Herzegovinian Croat but referred as Bosnian Croat and I got blocked indefinitely because of that ??? Añtó| Àntó (talk) 12:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aradic-es (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Just I would like to know how is referring certain things [3] [4]with the proper name [5] [6] is innapropriate ?? What to say about an editor whose only goal is to impose to be written what he wants to be and for other things (collaterral damage) he couldn't care less about About Blaž Kraljević issue .Bosnian or Herzegovinian?? I mean what is so big deal at that content: Test at google.com : *"Elizabeth II of England"-wiki :[7]:360,000 results *"Elizabeth II of United Kingdom"-wiki [8] 461,000 results Common mistake is referring entire UK as England , entire BiH as Bosnia etc.

Decline reason:

No rationale for unblock provided. Please note that using the unblock template to continue your edit war will result in the loss of your ability to edit this page. TNXMan 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Aradic-es (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@"TN:How in the world I actually can edit war here??Añtó| Àntó (talk)

Decline reason:

That isn't a reason to unblock, and you've used up more requests on this than you should have been allowed. This will have to be settled by ArbCom; we're protecting the page from now on so you don't waste our time. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If you want this settled by the Arbitration committee, the proper way will be to file an appeal with their "Ban Appeals Subcommittee" by e-mail to "arbcom-l (at) lists.wikimedia.org". They will either decide your appeal by off-wiki deliberation, or if they decide they want a public case about it, then somebody will unblock you conditionally so you can participate on the Arbcom pages. Until then, the block stands, as far as I am concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Burned police car in Široki brijeg.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Burned police car in Široki brijeg.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Oleola (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)